Archive for the ‘particle physics’ category: Page 471

Dec 9, 2011

The Accepted Black-Hole Theory Is Dismally at Fault

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

There is a vast canonical literature on the properties of the surface (“horizon”) of black holes: Even up to giving quantitative estimates of the horizon’s viscosity!

The correct theory by contrast implies since 1916 that the horizon is inaccessible in finite outer time and therefore does not exist in a finite-duration universe. Many consequences follow from this forgotten fact — including non-existence of “Hawking radiation” and non-existence of charged black holes. (The latter result is detailed in my gothic-R paper in print and the simpler Telemach paper on the Internet.)

The hoped-for miniature (almost-) black holes therefore possess four new properties, being (1) generated more easily than expected, (2) undetectable by CERN’s detectors, (3) virtually frictionless at first, and (4) growing exponentially inside earth. Hence the scientific “safety conference,” publicly called-for 4 years ago and openly requested by the Cologne Administrative Court almost one year ago, is more vital than ever.

The historic refusal by CERN to dismantle the danger before starting its black-hole factory, almost a year ago, represents a breach of scientific ethics, reason and morality. I speak in the name of the young majority on the planet when I say that the refusal by CERN to defend itself against the public reproach of scientific and moral wrongdoing when risking the short-term persistence of planet earth, amounts to a first-order historical phenomenon. Dear humanists and historians: please, enter the debate or launch it at long last. Crime stories are a treat to read. This surely is the biggest treat of history – being not over on finishing reading since the intrinsic time constant is several years. All other human concerns pale by comparison.

Continue reading “The Accepted Black-Hole Theory Is Dismally at Fault” »

Dec 1, 2011

CERN Is a Religious Problem

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

How can I convince my fellow planetary citizens that religion is the last hope? All religions are benevolent in their non-combative statements. They focus on the miracle of the Now with its infinite opportunities and the sub-miracles of color and other pleasures all provably non-existent in science. For science is the science of the Hades, the shadow world where to be the king is less than to be a slave on the surface of the earth, as Priamus said.

Science can be misused as the atomic bomb illustrates. Science is not science any more if it is lying. Religion says that the Now is a gift and that consciousness is a gentle stroke by the dream-giving instance who waits to be recognized through the fabric of the dream.

Imagine being chosen and being allowed to answer. Young children understand this best. They are the greatest mystics. They still respond to the smile which they recognized as containing the essence. So they invented the suspicion of benevolence being shown towards them, which turned them into persons. The biggest majesties.

How does CERN fit in? Never were there more scientists united in trying to unravel mysteries of the ultra-small. This is an almost religious legacy. It is bound to contribute to future benefit for all. Being so privileged, CERN is not allowed to lie. But this sounds like harsh criticism which never helps as such. Religion says “try to convince and move the heart.”

Continue reading “CERN Is a Religious Problem” »

Dec 1, 2011

Selective Non-quotation Is CERN’s Wunderwaffe

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

CERN chose to defame me on its 4 years old website but refuses to defend itself against my results from 1998 onwards in every single scientific publication with customarily hundreds of authors each. I call this selective discrimination and technically speaking, scientific fraud.

Scientific fraud is considered forgivable when sensitive results have something to do with security. More recently I found results which have some bearing on plasma confinement. Such topics, of course, are top secret. But the Telemach result — the two years old upshot of my 4-year long criticism — which implies that black holes are stable and uncharged so they cannot but grow exponentially inside earth – reveals on the contrary that what CERN is doing needs to be publicly discussed – unless it is not unethical to sacrifice the globe in a few years’ time with a percentage-range probability.

The world’s press find it logical that such sensitive results with large political implications be kept from the public. The Nobel Foundation likewise acts against its founder’s legacy by not calling for a scientific contest across the globe to defuse the danger.

What do my readers advise me to do in a situation in which the only request made is, please to stop denying the benefit of falsification to my results in a safety conference as officially requested by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011? The fact that not a single scientist steps forward to take the responsibility on his or her shoulders by saying that there is no danger and why, is a tiny little bit alarming, or is it not?

Nov 28, 2011

Call for an Instant Paradigm Change to Save Your Family and Planet

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

This is the first time that an instantaneous “paradigm shift” — abandonment of a reigning scientific consensus — is of vital importance for everyone. We have three months’ time left to achieve this goal while the menacing machine is under overhaul.

What is the subject matter that I am talking about? It is Einstein. More specifically, it is his “happiest thought” as he always called it. It consists in travelling in one’s mind in a constantly accelerating rockettship, and as such proves even more fertile than has been thought for a century. The implied new change of size, mass, and charge (independently discovered by professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy Colorado Springs) implies that an artificial black hole grows exponentially fast inside earth after eluding every detector when freshly produced by CERN in fulfillment of its high-flying intentions.

The proof is contained in a paper which is now “in print” again in a scientific journal after the journal that had accepted it for publication three years ago got closed-down to theoretical-physics topics retroactively, on the occasion of the retirement of its founding editor who promptly got publicly libeled by the competing journal “Nature.” The founding editor is now a presidential candidate for Egypt in recognition of his scientific achievements.

Why is the result in question so uniquely sensitive? On the one hand, this is because it may save your family, which is good news for everyone. On the other, it implies that a certain nuclear machine needs re-evaluation before it is too late, which is bad news for CERN. The scientific “safety conference” called for by the Cologne Administrative Court on the 27th of last January still goes unheeded by the United Nations which treasure their “observer status” at their sister organization, CERN. In the absence of my paper being in print, it was formally possible for the UN to screen CERN from criticism by disallowing the world’s press to report on a topic which lies before the UN Security Council for many months. This situation has changed with the paper being in print in a scientific journal.

Continue reading “Call for an Instant Paradigm Change to Save Your Family and Planet” »

Nov 24, 2011

“Alethophobic CERNiots”

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Alethophobia is “fear of the truth.” To choose to rather die than learn the truth is the ultimate example. The latter case is only topped by the decision to rather commit panbiocide (extinction of all life) than double-check. This is CERN’s feat for 4 years which led it to shooting sharp for one year, with the intrinsic delay between shooting and shrinking the earth being of the order of magnitude of 5 years.

But CERN is an honorable institution! Would it then prevent dissemination of the fact that a court requested the logically necessary safety conference last January?

They may have their reasons, so I hear you say in the comforting company of the loud silence shown by the world media and the upcoming world climate conference of the IPPC at Durban, South Africa.

Therefore it is perhaps of some interest to the planet’s media that CERN is cheating scientifically. Its last hundreds-of-authors long papers both exhibit scientific fraud. One has to do with the planetary danger of black-hole production, the other transports CERN’s claim to have falsified Einstein. Let me give the two-fold evidence here.

Continue reading “‘Alethophobic CERNiots’” »

Nov 19, 2011

Eminent physicists who dismiss LHC conspiracy theories — 3

Posted by in categories: education, particle physics

I thought I would offer a series of quotes to counter the codswallop frequently expressed here — suggesting that mainstream physicists have genuine concerns about the safety of the LHC**.

“We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC.

R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read the LSAG report where all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the LHC cannot lead to catastrophic consequences.

Continue reading “Eminent physicists who dismiss LHC conspiracy theories — 3” »

Nov 19, 2011

Friendship Lies at the Root of Science: Dear CERN, Please, Admit the Safety Conference

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Doing an unsafe experiment is unprofessional. Refusing to check a proof of implied danger is unheard of. And when the danger is the worst of human history, the decision to ignore it and go ahead acquires an eery touch.

My request to be allowed to give a talk at CERN was not granted although the CERN young scientists had invited me years before. My kind request to the scientific community to come up with a counter-proof to my results met with dead silence after an early attempt had fizzled. The logically required scientific safety conference is being denied for almost 4 years. The identical request made subsequently by a court – the Cologne Administrative Court – on last January the 27th, is refused to be reported by the media. (Only an Internet newspaper reported on it, in German, .)

Allow me to briefly repeat the relevant facts:

1) There is a finite probability that the LHC machine of CERN can produce miniature black holes. This hope was one of the major reasons why the “Large Hadron Collider” was built.

Continue reading “Friendship Lies at the Root of Science: Dear CERN, Please, Admit the Safety Conference” »

Nov 16, 2011

CERN: Stop Representing Anti-Science!

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

CERN’s refusal to quote scientific criticism for years represents anti-scientific behavior. The obvious explanation: a military-like obedience. All German university professors can be dishonorably discharged five years into the past while having to pay back their gross salaries for telling the truth, as happened to my wife, an endocrinologist. A similar obedience law is manifestly effective in the German-led European mini-state of CERN.

All 10.000 CERN scientists obeyed the order not to quote my results but proceed with the experiment in defiance. They thereby shut themselves out of the scientific community, a fraud that is bound to cost CERN the privilege to grant PhDs. But this academic consequence is negligible by comparison.

My danger-proving results were first sent to Dr. Mangano in early 2008, to be published in July the same year (long before his in this respect mute ”Safety Report” appeared). They survived a discussion with the Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik in March 2009 and got since sharpened into the “Telemach” theorem on the Internet. Telemach remains un-contradicted by all colleagues while confirmed independently by professor Richard J. Cook, Air Force Academy, whose arxiv paper “Gravitational space dilation” arrived independently at T, L, M (the Time, Length, Mass change of Telemach) and was followed by an explicit confirmation of number 4 (the charge change, Ch) which I was asked to make public.

If our joint result stays un-disproved, then the implications are unprecedented: a new situation brought upon every earthling – not to survive the next 5 years with an apparently percentage-range probability. By inflicting such horror, Europe makes itself an enemy of every person on the planet.

Continue reading “CERN: Stop Representing Anti-Science!” »

Nov 12, 2011

An Answer to Robin McKie and “zint“ – so far only in German

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

On I wrote a few minutes ago:

Ich möchte dem „Freitag“ und Robin McKie (und „zint“) danken, dass sie das heiße Thema LHC thematisiert haben, wobei zint auch das Thema “Schwarze Löcher”, die zu generieren einmal das Hauptziel des LH waren, anspricht. Nun wurden diese (ebenso wie das Higgs) offenbar nicht gefunden.

Hierbei gibt es jedoch einen interessanten Unterschied zum Higgs: Während man bei dem letzteren zu wissen glaubt, dass man es in einem bestimmten engen Fenster finden muss, wenn es existiert, hat man keine vergleichbaren Anhaltspunkte beim Mini-Schwarzen Loch. Nur, wenn es die berühmte hypothetische Hawkingstrahlung gibt, gibt es eine sichere “Signatur”. Wenn es sie nicht gibt, bleibt noch die erwartete elektrische Geladenheit einer Teilfraktion der erhofften Schwarzen Löcher ein detektierbarer Faktor. Für beide Möglichkeiten wurden offenbar keine Anzeichen gefunden bisher. Daraus schloss das CERN in seinen entsprechenden wissenschaftlichen Papers, dass keine Schwarzen Löcher produziert wurden. Das war für die ganze Welt sehr beruhigend.

CERN widerspricht allerdings nicht, dass es bei der Mitteilung dieses “Ergebnisses” mit Bedacht wissenschaftliche Literatur unerwähnt ließ, aus der hervorgeht, dass die beiden vorausgesetzten Eigenschaften widerlegt sind.

Continue reading “An Answer to Robin McKie and "zint‘ – so far only in German” »

Nov 9, 2011

Planet versus Einstein

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Einstein could see through. His most powerful (“happiest”) thought was the equivalence principle. This is the insight that you can equate what happens in ordinary acceleration with gravity. Newton had seen it before, as Thibault Damour found out, but the universal speed of light made it a magic lamp.

The “gravitational clock slowdown” immediately spotted as an implication by Einstein, is the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. It was never given the attention it deserves. 3 corollaries got discovered since. They were not embraced by Einstein at the time out of cautious modesty because quantum mechanics was not yet known in 1907. Einstein’s famous slow-down of photon frequency on the lower floor goes hand in hand with 3 further changes: a proportional reduction in the mass of all locally stationary bodies by virtue of quantum mechanical creation-annihilation; a proportional increase in all local lengths mediated by quantum mechanics; and a proportional reduction in all local charges, covarying with mass. The 4 changes (in T, L, M and Ch) are locally counterfactual. The length change L has the further corollary that the speed of light c becomes globally (and not just locally) constant.

Professor Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy arrived at the same results on the basis of Einstein’s later mature theory of general relativity. He saw the further corollary of a locally counterfactual quadratic change in the gravitational constant G. The at first overlooked change in charge was graciously conceded.

These new results have ground-breaking implications (no Ur-meter, no Ur-kilogram, no Ur-charge). Most importantly, they come at a critical moment in history. For their previous lack is responsible for an experiment being carried out in all innocence that with a sizeable probability leads to panbiocide in a few years’ time.

Continue reading “Planet versus Einstein” »